• The Journal of Society for e-Business Studies
• /
• v.23 no.4
• /
• pp.1-17
• /
• 2018

Recently, most online firms are trying to provide personalized services based on customer's data. However, customers are reluctant to give their information to online firm because of concerns about data breach. Online firms are seeking to increase their trust by ensuring the protection of personal information for customers through privacy seal (e.g. e-privacy) or data breach insurance. This research examines the effects of privacy assurance(i.e. privacy seal, data breach insurance) on consumer behavior in online environment. An experiment based on the hypothetical scenario was conducted using a between-subjects 2 (type of privacy assurance) + 1 (control) design. We found that both privacy seal and data breach insurance increased perceived privacy trust. In addition, privacy seal has a positive effect on the intention to provide personal information through perceived privacy trust. Finally, in the case of the group with a high (low) disposition to trust, higher perceived privacy trust is formed through privacy seal (data breach insurance). Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.23 no.6
• /
• pp.1207-1217
• /
• 2013

This study utilizes raw data from "Research on the actual condition of firms' information security" of KISA (2010) and constructs panel dataset to analyze a causal relationship between information security investment and security breach. Using Difference in Difference estimation method we find the following results. First, while the usual causality that information security investment reduces security breach is not supported, the reverse causality that security breach increases information security investment is well explained. Second, contrary to the conventional wisdom, firms in the finance/insurance business sector show the most significant reverse causality pattern.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.